Executions: Candidate 3
True, what is it?
It's like people think they should be in that situation.
And it's just like the truth.
It is as if a person who comes out of an environment like hell, and many would expect and believe that he or she is going to display some kind of "disabling", a considerable degree of "failure" and "unseemous eating" as well as "wilderry" and "selfish" and a lack of "so-called precision"
The question is, is it true? Is this general "demeanour" closer to reality than a small probability of "the environment coming out decent"?
In other words, is it not true that this man has a very strong black life, has recreated himself, even a certain "godly", and finally has a gentle, juicy, cooperative and even a soft side? What if that's what this guy looks like right now?
By the same token, is it true that, under enormous environmental tensions, the vast majority of people show that "out of control" is real, or is it true that they don't move?
Candidate No. 1 is right, and one cannot see and evaluate a person in such a short cut.
Education aims to broaden our perceptions and perspectives and become more inclusive, rather than deepening our own prejudices. The resolutionmakers here are well-educated and well-working. However, I knew the tone of the trial when I saw some of the drafters present indiscriminately labeling candidate No. 4 as a "genetic" and having been endorsed by several other drafters.
So I understood that my polite and sincere response would be considered a chameleon and a smooth one on such occasions. When asked about the views of the other candidates, my cautious, friendly and real thoughts, motivated by the principle of "incomplete information without prejudging or prejudging", have been taken by many here as dishonest. In this unfair trial, it seems that some of the resolution makers would have preferred to see a person whose emotions and gestures can be manipulated by himself and who can then be shown in his "playbook".
I have an almost birthright -- an ability not to have an environmental impact. This capacity is divided into two levels, one independent of the state, regions, schools, industries, institutions (national/foreign/private) and culture, and the other independent of the community atmosphere and emotions of those present in the specific scene.
In this trial, I felt deeply that it was a place where one part of a single culture was dominated by values and where emotions and some judges were self-conscious. As I have always done, I have maintained my own calm and set out the ideas I hold for myself, but I have been described as acting, without conflict and conflict, without showing my own thoughts.
Countless footage of this trial reminds me of the prison experiment at Stanford University and the German film The Wave, as well as the contents of the book " The Uighurs."
In a short period of time, the Resolutionr 11 considered me to be similar to his experience, that I was similar to him and that, therefore, there was a certain similarity of thought and a certain similarity of motivation in making a particular expression. And some of the hatred and some of the PTSD that I think is quite possible.
Resolutionr 9 asked me if I wanted to be a slave. When I mentioned that I was unwilling and would come to the fore to overthrow this slavery, many people on the scene saw it as selfish.
Come on, do we all ignore the fact that a society with slavery is a good society? Should it not be overthrown?
The revolutionaries were often the first to bleed, and the first to emerge faced the first confrontation and the greater possibility of seeing their vision come true. Slavery necessarily hurts all, but, most tragically, those who are to be helped are the blood-eating, even the direct killers.
Is the culture of "shooting the head" so deep that the reference to the word "leading" will fuel the anger in the hearts of those who are attacked with the word "moderate" and ignore the legitimacy of this thing itself?
Even this leadership does not mean privileges. Perhaps in the eyes of many on the ground, "lead" and "lead" are equivalent to privilege and material.
People do not believe that there are people around them who can give and even die to realize and defend ideas, not for their own benefit.
I remember when I was working in Hong Kong, when I was talking to top investment traders in high school in the United States, and when I learned what they did, they were no better than kids who dropped out of school to sell in the market. Only the latter have never had the opportunity to do such a job in their lifetime, and they don't even know what the deal is, and they have a few screens.
When there is only one quarter of humanity left, old economic patterns, social relations, productivity distribution and so on require radical innovation. I would therefore like to participate in the establishment of a new order. Among them, when asked how to measure people, I referred to the criterion in which one's own talents, abilities, character, morals, etc. are more important than disaster. One of my visions is to help more children who sell food in a market similar to the one just mentioned, and to measure the inclusion of moral and quality elements in standards to prevent the emergence of another Frankenstein.
Perhaps people are too sensitive, and these words are used as "social Darwin". So the question arises, which is more of a "social Darwin" than a measure of human qualities and ethics, and of talent and achievement, which is more of a measure of achievement than a measure of achievement (the substantive criteria that have existed for centuries and centuries)? Besides, I'm talking about an order that is multi-dimensional, not just a measure of people.
I remember that when the terrorist attacks in Kyrgyzstan in 2016, I did not cancel my original travel trip and insisted on settling investment disputes locally. I'm almost alone on a plane to Central Asia. As the plane leaped, I saw the most magnificent mountain, a vast presence beyond the Alps. That fear of fear is replaced by a great belief and certainty.
I was working in the system, and that trip had nothing to do with my bonus. It's just a warm blood and affection, over the dead. And I can't go. It was 2016, when ISIS was decapitated live worldwide. The terrorist attack was funded by Al-Qaida in Syria.
However, after I had detailed this experience, I was labelled selfishly.
Perhaps this is an era in which truth, thought, reason and evidence are buried by imagination, emotion, self-simulation and capture.
I knew the tone of the resolution from the outset, but I wanted to stick to it and let more people hear my beliefs and ideas, even though I knew that it would increase hope for survival if, at the right time, some groups liked to hear. But I finally chose truth, courage and determination.
The trial was not so much a process of finding a solution as a critical and dissuasive assembly that resorted to emotion (and not even exclusively to emotion), labelling and mass unconscious behaviour by the majority.
May people no longer need to step forward to live the life they want.
NE0401162106050151103
Backstage is responding to 210605.
For further information, please click on the original language for the 25 July resolution. ]